An editorial in the April 26, edition of Nature magazine page 950, states “Government agencies should act to ensure the neutrality of research contractors.” This statement opens and interesting door. It implies that certain research contractors have a bias and do not present the truth in their research. This bias is identified as private contractors, that do work for industry, the “dark side.” The editor puts forth the opinion that these contractors should not be allowed to do official research on environmental issues. He cites an example where one of these contractors hired to do research on the effects of bisphenol had also worked for a private client that produced bisphenol. Environmentalist, the “light side” cried foul and had the contract withdrawn.

This implies that only the light side research organization (those that agree with the precepts of the environmental religion) are free of bias and can do important research, thereby insuring that the public and the government gets only one side of the story. There is certainly more than one type of bias that effects research. Religious bias is also present in research. There is little doubt that what people believe effects their conclusions. For example, many scientists who are also fundamental Christians believe and have done research to prove than the world was created as described in Genesis. To believe that this same kind of close-minded thinking is not found within the environmental movement is naive. The environmental activist that called foul are not scientist. Their expertise lies in propaganda.

I have been reviewing research for years and have seen many articles on the negative environmental impact of clear cutting, however I have never seen an article on the advantages of a clear-cut environment. In nature, there is no absolute right and wrong. The champion of the old growth movement, the extinction of the spotted owl, is now being laid at the feet of a more adapted species the barred owl who is and has been for years out competing the spotted owl. That is how nature works and has worked for billions of years. The environmentalist are now attempting to artificially control, “kill,” this bird to save the spotted owl. This belief is based on that opinion biodiversity is more important that adaptability in nature. There is no proof of this belief and considerable evidence that it is unfounded. Many environmentalist, ignore the evidence against biodiversity and THAT IS NOT SCIENCE THAT IS RELIGION.

The closing paragraph states “…government officials who are fully aware of what their public-sector clients need and expect.” And what is that? During the last two elections only 2% of the population voted for the green party. What is it that the other 98% need and expect? Truth maybe? The editorial then ends with a plea, “more importantly, they can ensure that they are receiving the data they need to perform their missions.” What is implied is the data conforming to the environmental view.

You can tell the difference between science and religion in that science welcomes opposing views and religion suppress opposing views.

Oregroanian April 28, 2007 page c1: An article titled –All Gods Creatures – States that “Animal rights activists see all living creatures as equals—and all with the same rights. They imagine a world where animals live in freedom, without fear of being eaten, worn, exhibited in a zoo, used for research or owned by people who think of them as their children.” Wow! It’s about time we begin talking about this. I agree that animals should not live in fear of being eaten. Think of those poor salmon who live in constant fear of being eaten by sea lions.

Certainly, animals should have rights. Any sea lion violating the rights of the salmon should be punished. The sea lions should be arrested and tried for their crimes against life. Of course, we should read them their rights and supply them with a lawyer, give them a fair trial in front of a jury of their peers. After all ever living creature is equal and any animal that eats another animal should be incarcerated or executed.

But wait, animals are not the only living creatures on this earth. Plants live as well. Now just because they are not fuzzy, warm or do not have big brown eyes, is not a reason they should be mowed down, slice, diced and served for dinner. Just because you can’t hear a carrot scream when you rip it out of the ground, doesn’t mean it doesn’t feel pain. Just because mommy carrots do not have arms, does not mean that they do not feel the trauma when their child is wrenched from their bosom and then forced to watch it slowly being devoured inch by painful inch.

Now its true that bacteria are also a living creatures, but that is carrying things to far. We need to be reasonable.

If anyone is interested, I have some excellent recipes for gravel stew and silt soufflé.

Oregroanian April 27, 2007 page B1: An article titled –Owl vs. Owl sets stage for intervention – States that “Northwest spotted owls, already beaten down by longtime logging of their old growth forest habit, now face and accelerating threat from invading barred owls that are driving them out of their house and home.” The statement assumes that the spotted owl was beaten down by “longtime logging.” Oh, if that’s so why didn’t the barred owl get beaten down by logging. Maybe the demise of the spotted owl was driven all along by the more fitted species the barred owl. Maybe the whole spotted owl - logging thing, was made up to stop logging. Not a chance, certainly the Environmental religious would not stoop to subterfuge to support their agenda.

Apparently, the solution is to shoot the more successful species. Does anyone see the ludicrous position in which the human species has placed itself? In order to save biodiversity the environmental religious movement is going to artificially alter the course of 4 billion years of evolution. The rule of the universe is no longer survival of the fittest. The new rule is going to be, survival of …what? Everything? What some bureaucrat or activist thinks best? The control of nature requires a certain omnipotence that humans lack.

How does this stack up to the sea lions and salmon issue? The inescapable fact is that the whole notion of environmental protection is flawed and the Environmental protection Act is causing more damage than aid to the environment. Whose idea was it any way that the US Government should guide the evolutionary process? They can even carry out an election properly.

Life on this planet is robust; it has been around for 3.5 billion years and will be here long after humans are gone. The most endangered species on this planet are humans. We have too many of them and most of them are not as smart as they think they are.

Oregroanian April 25, 2007 page B1: An article titled –One fish, two fish, dead fish – Written by Andy Parker. Is a commentary on the sea lion issue, in which he states that, “And my bet is most people these days would rather see a sea lion than some old guy in bib overalls catch a salmon.” I am not an old guy in bib overalls and I don’t catch salmon, but I’ll take that bet Andy if you have the guts to put you money were your self righteous mouth is.

Then good ole Andy begins to quote facts from the Sierra club. Now there’s an organization that has no bias and will certainly speak the truth. If Andy would do any honest research into the question, he would find that most returning salmon are killed by predators. Fish and Game data shows sea lions and other Pinnipeds kill over 190 million adult salmon per year, and other predators kill another 230 million salmon. Every adult salmon kill made by a sea lion kills 5000 smolt in a single bite.

Andy quit peddling the company line and gather some data other than propaganda from the sierra club. For example, download the article on the archives page of the North Pacific Research site entitled “Predators and Salmon.” Get an original thought, state it. You may get fired, but then you might understand what being a man is all about even if he wears bib overalls.

Oregroanian April 22, 2007 page W41: An article titled –Bicycle culture hits potholes – has a picture accompanying the article which shows five bike riders and a Tri-Met bus crossing one of the Portland bridges. A comment attached to the picture states “Bicycle commuters, such as these early morning riders on the Hawthorne Bridge are a common sight in Portland. But some advocates worry the city isn’t doing enough to remain a bike friendly place.” It is interesting and maybe unintentional that the bicycles and bus are juxtaposition in this photo.

On the other hand, maybe in this CO2 global warmed world we may want to rethink the use of Bicycles. The common assumption is riding bicycles to work is better than riding the bus. The basis for this notion is primarily public intuition and neglects the fact that the bike riders are exhaling CO2. However, as is commonly the case public intuition is often wrong because the bike riders breath eight times more often and exhale twice as much CO2 with each breath as a sitting passenger. If we compare the CO2 emission from a 30-mile commute by bus and bike. The startling conclusion is that 40 biker riders produce 64 times more CO2 that 40 bus riders and the bus.

So, “all the holier than thou,” bike riders, and the “greener than thou” Portland city officials, need to rethink their opinions on encouraging the use of bicycles. If you really want to save the planet, maybe we should put a bounty on bike riders.

Plants appeared on this planet about 3.5 billion years ago. Plants take sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide, manufacture glucose to get energy and discard six molecules of oxygen as waste. This process is called photosynthesis and requires six CO2 molecules + six H2O molecules and sunlight to produce one molecule of glucose C6H12O6 and releases six molecules of Oxygen. Over the next 3 billion years, the oceans and the atmosphere were polluted with Oxygen.

Then about 5 million years ago animal life appeared in the oceans on this planet and took advantage of the abundance of plant life and oxygen. Animals use the glucose stored in plant life combine it with oxygen to get energy and waste carbon dioxide and water. This completed the so-called carbon dioxide -- oxygen cycle, which is not completely true. A cycle infers that balance is maintained. Prior to plant life, the carbon dioxide content of the air was at least 35,000 times greater than it is today. The Oxygen content of the atmosphere was at least 70,000 times less than it is today, and peaked near the end of the carboniferous period around 300 million years ago at about twice what it is today.

These facts should imply first, the content of the atmosphere is never constant, and one creatures waste is another creatures food. Because of the high oxygen content of the atmosphere, animals were able to crawl out of the water and attack the abundance of plants. The success of animals eventually produced giant plant eating, oxygen sucking machines called dinosaurs. These animals were so successful they eventually overpopulated the world with dinosaurs. The result was that oxygen decreased and carbon dioxide increased. Because these animals were stupid, they did not realize that their success would eventually lead to their extinction. Eventually the Oxygen content of the atmosphere got so low, about 65 million years ago, and their inefficient lungs could no longer extract sufficient oxygen and they simply died of asphyxiation. This is the way the world ends; not with a bang but a whimper.

The more efficient lungs of the mammals, who developed around 35 million years before this extinction, were able to survive and fill the niches left by the mass extinction of the all powerful dinosaurs. Can humans learn from Dinosaurs? The only thing constant in the universe is change. It is impossible to stop change. The only way to survive change is to change also. All of the fuss over increased CO2 has neglected the decrease in O2.

The overwhelming source of energy on this planet is through the metabolism of glucose. Animal production of CO2 is far larger than industry production of CO2. Global Climate change cannot be controlled with out reducing animal metabolism.

Oregroanian April 19, 2007 page D2: An article titled –Suit argues to lift salmon protection – reports, “The federal government and conservation groups countered that the Endangered Species Act requires consideration of the best available science, which clearly INDICATES that depending on fish raised in hatcheries to boost salmon numbers will, over the long run, harm fish that spawn naturally in the rivers.”

Who gets to define the best available science? Certainly the sciences surrounding the salmon issue is flawed and one sided. Any science that doesn’t agree with their preconceived notion is flawed. The term indicates is not the same as it will definitely harm fish. This science was done years ago and no new studies support this idea. Is that what the EPA calls the best available science?

On Page D6, an Editorial titled –Stop Feeding salmon to the lions – states that 3000 to 4000 fish from the spring run are being killed by Sea Lions. Consider that each of those fish carries 5000 eggs, then the sea lions are essentially killing 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 million salmon fingerlings. Compare that number with the numbers of fingerlings killed by turbines.

I disagree with his statement that no one is arguing that sea lions are to blame for the demise of Columbia Salmon and Steelhead. He apparently has not read “Saving Salmon,” (see Archives) this article was written 7 years ago and clearly showed that salmon predators are one of the major causes for the demise of the salmon. The editorial ends with a plea to use common sense. Common sense is not a long suit of a hardcore environmentalist.

Oregroanian April 19, 2007 page A2: An article titled –Study: Poll Shows residents leery of Big Easy – reports, “A quarter of the people living in the New Orleans metropolitan area are planning to leave, according to a survey released Wednesday.” Are they crazy? Why abandon a city that is built below sea level just because of a few hurricanes and the threat that the sea level is going to rise? Where is their common sense, their sense of decency? Think of the jobs it will create rebuilding it every few years? It was a miracle that it with stood the Mississippi River as long as it did. The city should have never been built there in the first place.

If Louisiana needs a large seaport, let them find a more suitable site above the high water level of the Mississippi and any reasonable rise in sea level. Times change, and those that do not learn from history perish. If they need the river flowing through their city let them move the river, it would be cheaper and safer than rebuilding a failed city, in harms way.

Oregroanian April 18, 2007 page A2: An article titled –Study: Ethanol may fuel more smog, deaths – reports, “switching from gasoline to ethanol touted as a green alternative at the pump may create dirtier air, causing slightly more smog related deaths, a new study says. …Each year, about 4,700 people according to the study's author die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen component of smog…”

The article also states that, “Jacobson’s (the author) study troubles some environmentalist, even those who work with him.” This statement is designed to cast suspicion on the writer, which seems to be the policy of the oregroanian towards any author that doesn’t subscribe to the papers beliefs. However, the same statement also illuminates that many environmentalist approach their work from a point not based on truth but on religious feelings toward what comprises proper environmental activity.

Why is it that environmentalist refuse to believe that many of their pet solutions to problems may make things worse? If there is one truth in nature, it is that everything changes the environment. Ethanol in small quantities has a small impact. In quantities large enough to make a dent in this country’s gasoline needs it will make a major negative impact. Nobody is studying the negative impacts on weather caused by extracting large amounts of energy using wind turbines. We just seem to toss off solutions without think or studying their impacts. Sort of like Edison and the light bulb, try everything until something works. There is a better way. At least Jacobson has taken off his rose colored glasses.

Whereas it is not yet clear whether ethanol will solve the climate problem, it is clear that it will increase, hunger and poverty, something that apparently doesn’t concern the environmentalist as long as we have old growth and salmon.

Oregroanian April 17 2007 page A5: A small article hidden away on page 5 titled –U.S. troops dying at highest rate – reports, “Over the past six months, U.S. troops have died in Iraq at the highest rate since the war began, an indication that the conflict is becoming increasingly dangerous for U.S Forces even after more than four years of fighting.” According to this article, 3308 soldiers have died over 4 years of combat. That is longer than WWII, which killed 300,000 US Service men. Since the beginning of the Iraq war, 62,000 people were murdered and in 2005, alone 43,200 were killed in traffic accidents in the US. What is important to the media is apparently not people dying, but how they die.

As usual, the oregroanian has missed the point. The increase in fatalities in Iraq indicates that the enemy leadership recognizes that their best hope of winning this war is to kill the will of the US to fight. The oregroanian, the rest of the press, the politicians and the public who back pulling out of the war are sending a loud and clear message to the Iraqi dissents, “Kill American soldiers.” Our friends in the U.S. will use that to stop the war and pull out the troops. It happened in Viet Nam now it is happening in Iraq. The U.S. democracy has no stomach to fight.

The majority of the population has lived in pampered isolation so long it has no idea how the real world behaves. This country is paralyzed by internal dissention. This is how a democracy functions? Why should any country want to become democratic? I am sorry, but this is not the way to a better world.

I am glad I lived when America was great. The people were strong, and the United States consisted of a united people. Today, we elect leaders and then don’t follow them. That is what will kill democracy.

If your son or daughter has died in Iraq, send a thank you note to the media.

According to the fox news channel, a 13-year-old surfer was recovering on Sunday after a sea lion attacked her off Australia’s West Coast. "It jumped out of the water at her and hit her head on," recalled Chris Thomas, a family friend. "This thing just exploded in a full-on, frontal attack,” said Thomas, who was driving the boat. Apparently Ella Murphy, who was being towed on her surfboard behind a boat when the sea lion lunged at her, lost three teeth and sustained a broken jaw in the attack.

A marine scientist said the attack was odd and that the sea lion may have been trying to play with Murphy. Sure exploding in a full on frontal attack is just playing. Hello are we living in the same world?

Do we have a problem here? If we do it is because of the stupidity of marine scientists for one. It is obvious that the sea lion was not trying to play with Ella. The scientists who go around teaching children that wild animals are just cute little lovable playful creatures are the problem.

People who think that stingrays and grizzly bears are harmless generally find the sting of truth can be fatal. Mother nature and the environment is not benevolent, they are cold and merciless.

The problem could also be that there are too many sea lions. Sea lions are not people they do not care about people only about where their next meal is coming from. In the Northwest, that meal is the endangered salmon. The environmental movement has increased the population of numerous species. Presently we have packs of coyotes within the city limits of Portland. It will not be long before a small child is killed by these cute, dog-looking animals. Another victory of the environmental movement.

Oregroanian April 16, 2007 page A1: In an article titled –Nickel and dime the bottle bill – “The backers want it expanded, but if cost rise too much, grocers might flex their muscle and try to kill it” Hooray for the grocers. Boo on those backers who think that throwing money at a problem will solve it. Could the problem be one of duplication of effort? The state already funds an organization to pick up bottles, it is called garbage collection, or in environmental double speak, waste management.

Suppose we just let the grocers continue to collect the 1.48 billion dollars paid for deposits, give that money to the garbage collectors to collect and separate the bottles from the garbage, a job they know how to do and reduce the monthly cost of waste collection. That way the grocers and the consumer are out of the recycling business. The consumer simply deposits the containers in his “waste management can” certainly more convenient that returning the bottles for a lousy nickel.

Those consumers that toss bottle out the car window or leave them around picnic sites are obviously intellectually challenged and hopefully, a small segment of the population. If a nickel will not get them to return the bottle, a dime isn’t going to do it either. However, perhaps a bounty on the purveyors of that practice might reduce their numbers and at the same time improve the intelligence of the species.

Oregroanian April 14, 2007 page D1: In an article titled –No wars on their dime– “The rev. John Schwiebert and his wife, Pat have refused to pay federal taxes as long as their dollars would support the U.S. military. They also participate in anti war actions such as this one at the Armed force Recruiting Center in Northeast Portland, where John was arrested for blocking the door.” The accompanying picture shows a surly looking fellow being applauded by about 8 people. From another photograph the Schwiebert’s weekly peace vigil is not gather many participants. If there is any meaning to body language the man is stubborn, bitter, and extremely righteous. The fact that his non-support may kill a few American boys here and there, is unimportant as long as he gets his way. It must be nice to be so virtuous. However, it doesn’t look like he or his wife are happy nor that his protests are a big hit.

However, the idea that you don’t have to pay your taxes if you disagree with the government may catch on. Wouldn’t it be nice to stop funding anything you don’t like. We all could cut our tax bill in half. That would grind this country to a halt. Say what about corporations that don’t believe in the Environmental laws, should they be able to withhold their taxes? Sauce for the Schweiberts, is sauce for the rest of us.

Oregroanian April 11, 2007 page B1: In an article titled –Even with help, life Tough for endangered Bunnies– states, “Why did most of a group of 20 pygmy rabbits, bred in captivity, avoid their custom-dug burrows in Washington’s sagebrush steppes and hop their way instead into the jaws of predators? Scientist who are trying to recover the endangered animals are scratching their heads in puzzling it out.”

The term scientist must be used loosely here. Have these scientists ever heard of the evolutionary concept that has been functioning for 4 billion years, “survival of the fittest?” Calling them cute little bunnies is a deliberate attempt to use propaganda to get sympathy for their stupid project. Unfortunately, it works for any warm, little, fuzzy animal.

Regrettably, nature doesn’t care about how cute or cuddly an animal is. Nature is only concerned with its ability to survive. If it can no longer cut the mustard, it must give up its place at the table of life to some other creature that is bettered suited to the changing environment. There are millions of niches in nature, when one is abandon because of extinction, it is quickly filled by what is called creation. A new species better suited to the ever-changing environment replaces the failed species. This has been working for billions of years. Artificially filling that niche with a failed species is not how nature works. Change is basic to nature. Stopping change regardless of the cause of change will alter the evolutionary process. Are these great scientists bright enough to know the long-term consequences of their actions?

Artificially stopping extinction is as bad as artificially causing extinction.

Oregroanian April 11, 2007 page E1: An article titled –Power bill glides through senate, states, “The Senate easily passed a bill Tuesday that would require utilities to move aggressively into renewable energy, adding momentum to Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s effort to make the state a leader in clean energy development.

The bill forces infeasible renewable energy down the throats of the power companies and the citizens of Oregon to conform to the half baked idea that wind, solar, geothermal, and wave power must provide 25 % of the electric utilities sales by 2025. For some reason it our brilliant governor cannot comprehend that since logging was stopped in this state money does not grow on trees anymore.

Ted needs a lesson in Economics. The base for all economics is the environment. If the citizens of Oregon are forced to pay extra money for power they will have to destroy more of the environment to get it.

Increasing the cost of power may not make a difference to Fat Cat Ted, cause he’s got his bundle. The middle class and the poor will take the brunt of Teddy’s vanity and stupidity. Jobs will go away. Oregon attracts business because of cheap power. Paying more for power will push those on the edge of the poverty line into poverty. But, Ted will have his monument.

The sad truth is that by 2025 there will be 2 to 3 billion more people on the planet and Ted’s heroic effort will have increased the cost of power, increased the number of poor but not reduced this state energy consumption. The answer to global warming is not in energy production or industry it is people. Green power is like playing music as the Titanic goes down. It comforts the people but will not save the ship of state as it glides beneath the sea of stupidity.

If Ted wants clean, cheap energy, build dams. The people of Tillamook County could sure use one. The idea that all dams are bad for the environment is a seventies idea, get into the 21st century. If Ted wants to save salmon, kill their predators. There are no easy answers to difficult questions.

Oregroanian April 10, 2007 page A1: In an article titled –Court finds feds no help to fish. “The judge demanded that they come up with a better way to remedy the damage that hydroelectric dams do to fish. Dam turbines for instance, chew up young salmon migrating toward the ocean. The judge has warned federal agencies that … he will not put up with any more botched attempts to reduce the impact of dams on Salmon.”

This ruling assumes that dams only cause harm and do not provide benefits to salmon. Such as helping return salmon, get to the breeding grounds. In rivers without dams, many salmon are killed and exhausted by rapids, shallows and waterfalls in these rivers. Dams remove those impediments and substitute a more fish friendly gradual ascent by fish ladder. The result of this river improvement is that more salmon reach the spawning grounds, each carrying 5000 eggs. So one salmon save going upstream is equivalent to 5000 salmon killed going down stream.

The article also stated that, “environmental, fishing and other groups who have pressed the case in court were thrilled by Mondays ruling, seeing it as extra leverage on behalf of the salmon.” This an excellent example of the value of special interest groups and the endangered species act. Special interest groups do not care about the rest of the world and the effects that dam removal will have on the overall environment, they only care about their special interest. Who cares if the world turns into an oven as long as the dams are removed? The endangered species act is the vehicle that gives these small radical groups power over the greater good of the people.

Oregroanian April 9, 2007 page A2: In an article titled -1 million species and counting- It was pointed out that “A worldwide effort to catalog every living species has topped 1 million. …reaching an expected total of 1.75 million species.”

Does that sound like the planet lacks biodiversity? There was no indication in the article how many were animals and how many were plants. If we assume that half are animals, then that would indicate that there are at least 800,000 species of animals on the planet. If each species consists of an average of 20,000 individuals, then there exists on the planet 16 billion individuals animals that pump CO2 into the environment.

Is it possible that the environmentalist attitude that we must not only stop all extinctions, but increase their populations until them become pests has anything to do with global warming? Do we really need all the Canadian geese that infest our parks and defecate in the grass that our children are playing in? Do we need or can we afford to have deer, coyotes, raccoons, bears and possums in our backyards? How much is too much of a good thing?

One of the prime assumptions of the Environmental movement is that life on this planet is very fragile. Life, as we are aware of it, exists in a relatively narrow band of temperatures and pressures, but life as we know it, may not be a very large cross section of life itself. For example, recent studies have shown life in abundance surrounding and dependent on hot water vents on the bottom of the ocean and receives no energy from the sun. Life has also been found deep in the recess of abandon mines where the sun never shines, living in water that has a pH below that of battery acid. The temperature in the mine is greater than 130° F. Is that fragile?

Life has been has been around on this earth for over 400 billion years. Now 400 billion years is a staggering number, beyond the comprehension of most people. But, most people would agree that it is a very long time. Can anything that has been around for that long a time be fragile?

During that 400 billion years life has withstood drastic (i.e., considerable greater than any recorded in historic times) changes in climate, changes in composition of the atmosphere, meteor impacts, plagues, floods and drought. Consider the destructive force released by the Mount St Helen’s eruption. Yet, life was back within a year and 20 years later life is flourishing. Consider that 50 million years ago all of eastern Oregon and Washington was a sea of molten lava. Yet, life flourishes there as well.

The truth is that life is robust. Humans certainly have large egos, but they do not have the capability of destroying life on this planet. They can alter life, but that is not a big deal all species alter life. They certainly have the power to destroy themselves. Over the last 4 billion years, many ultra successful species have caused their own demise.

No, life will survive and flourish in spite of human meddling. But, the environmental movement will bring humans to the brink of extinction.

This article is the usual propaganda that you expect from the Oregroanian. Ah the freedom of the press to be Bias. That coupled with the power of economics that prevents the publication of another paper that might show a different bias. This is not the freedom of the press envisioned by the founding fathers.

The last time the land of the brave and the home of the free had a president that was not rich, was Harry Truman. You may get to cast your vote, but money picks who you will cast if for. There is something very undemocratic about that process.

Oregroanian April 8, 2007 page A7: For the third day in a row gain the more predictions on the effects of global temperature change. One billion people live in areas that will receive less water from glacier melt. Three quarters of a billion people will move into these water stresses areas. How about building dams to catch the water? Wouldn’t think of it, even if a nearly two billion people are dying of thirst. Global warming could increase the number of hungry in the world. Especially if we take the corn that normally helps feed these people and turn it in to bio fuel to power our SUVs. Major increase in death rates due to a global warming is also predicted. Once again, all of these dire predictions are based on Models of what the climate will be like in 2080.

Stop and think a minute, turn your attention to weather forecast generally found on the back a section. These temperature and precipitation forecasts are based on models. Saturday those models showed sunshine. It Rained. Today they show rain. The sun is shining. How is it that science can have models that can accurately predict what will happen 70 years from now and do not have models that can predict accurately what will happen tomorrow?

The article mentions 120 million people at risk from hungry, yet nothing is mentioned that in 2080 if populations is not controlled that there will be another 25 billion people on to feed. Does that mean that this model predicts that we can increase food production by 500 percent?

Why is this almost religious fervor sweeping through much of the scientific community? Scientist are people. People have feelings. People have beliefs. Scientists are supposed to not let their feelings and beliefs affect their conclusions. Unfortunately, that is not the case. For example, many good scientists believe that God created the universe as describe in the bible. There are just as many other scientists who let their environmental religious beliefs effect their conclusions as well. For hundreds of years we let religious feels control the world. It was called the Dark Ages.

Oregroanian April 7, 2007 page A4: Again the whole page predicts, global temperature change will produce a rise of the sea level, shrinking glaciers, drowning polar bears, fish starving, more floods and drought, increase hurricanes, increased wild fires, starvation, plagues of ticks, avalanches, 30% of the world species will go extinct all based on Models. This report is supposed to be a watered down version after heated debate on,

“…the uncertainties that come into play when scientists try to predict the wheres and whens of climate change and how it will affect localized regions.”

The scientists are carefully crafting their predictions. They are so broad that if anything happens it will be covered by there predictions and they can say, “See we told you so.” You may recall that after Katrina, the “scientists” predicted more numerous and powerful hurricanes in the next hurricane season do to global warming. It didn’t happen. In fact, it was the quietest hurricane season in record. Whoops! They have learned from that mistake to not be specific and to be ambiguous so that all bases are covered.

All of this drum beating, to get the world so scared that it will do as they say, and severely reduce industrial pollution. All of this scientific power, is focused on a solution that is unproven. Sure Industrial pollution exists and produces CO2 but, it can be shown that industrial waste only produces about 10% of that CO2. The other 90% comes from metabolization and methane production.

As we have said in the past, this is not an industry problem but a population problem. Limiting the population of Humans and other animals on this planet is unpalatable to many scientists, particularly biologist. In the last 100 years, the human population has more than tripled and also the population of tens of thousands of species protected by various legislation. Whales have lungs the size of an automobile.

If you talk the talk—You have to walk the walk. No one on the planet has the intestinal fortitude to face those two problems so they fiddle around the edges while the world burns.

Oregroanian April 6, 2007 page A11: The whole page blames, a new dust bowl in the Southwest, rise of the sea level in San Francisco, bleaching of coral reefs in Australia, sinkholes in Alaska, coral die offs. shrinking glaciers, drowning polar bears, fish are starving, salmon are being driven farther north, water scientist say more floods and drought, increase hurricanes, all based on Models. This whole thing is getting a little carried away. The only statement on the whole page that makes any sense is “It appears that the models are not capturing something that’s going on,” said Walt Meier identified as a researcher. Really!!!

In the modeling world it is known that a model can be constructed to predict anything the modeler wishes to prove. The problem is that a model that doesn’t fit reality is a more dangerous than no model at all. In this world, where there is an all most universal belief in Corporate greed, it should not come as a surprise that scientist are greedy as well. Stir up the public and the money and fame flows in.

Is the temperature going to change? Yes. It has been for 4 billion years why should it stop now.

The headline totally misses the point of the article, but makes the point of the editorial staff on the newspaper. This is annoying, but what do expect for the Oregroanian. Ah for the days when this town has three newspapers.

Sure the trees will come back on there own. Just like the Tillamook burn, which took 70 years to grow forest that would support the spotted owl. In the mean time the forest grows brush to feed wildfires. Wildfires dump tons of CO2 unnecessarily into the atmosphere. The increase in wildfires over the last 30 years testifies to the failure of the current environmental policy on forest management. If we are going to stop global warming, we need to return to the practice of the seventies and manage our forest. This will prevent fires and provide renewable resources so badly needed in this 21 century and cool the planet. The CO2 produced by the forest fires in Oregon last year far exceeded the CO2 produced by Oregon industry. At the same time, those CO2 gobbling trees that were burned down are no longer taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Duh!

When is the US going to wake up to the fact that the environmental policies are the problem?

This article is on the action of the supreme court ruling that the EPA must take action to assess the environmental perils of the global warming. This decision was reached because of the Endangered species Act. This action now puts a agency in charge of determining what is and what is not acceptable in your life. This agency has no head only a body. An agency is a large group of people sitting in little offices making decisions that effect your life. They are obliged to tell you what they do, and that is all. You have no control over it. Even the president of the United States cannot control it.

How did this happen? A small group of environmentalist activists brought suit against the government. Did you elect these activists to speak for you? The last elections showed that only 2% of the population were environmentalist. Where do they get their power? The ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT!

This act is the worst piece of legislation since prohibition. This Act authorized the EPA to write regulations that they deem necessary to correct any problem. Who is the EPA? You have no control over the EPA even the president has no control over the EPA. This act gives the EPA power over ever aspect of your life. This process is done NOT by people you elect. All that the act requires is public review and comment. However, none of the public comments are required to be even answered let alone alter the regulations. The regulatory process is above the law.

The rules generated by the EPA are called 4d Rules, because they are authorized by that paragraph in the Endangered species act. 4d Rules were written to save salmon, and are on the books; they are just not being enforced at this time. If you want to see what the “Thought Police” and “Big Brother” have in store for you don’t read Nineteen Eighty Four, read the 4d rules on salmon. These rules prohibit things like your children wading in streams or throwing rocks in the water.

The innocuous appearing Endangered Species Act is slowly squeezing the freedom out of your country. It thrives on inaction by the people. The law needs to be changed.

Tillamook County has had devastating floods every year for hundreds of years. Last November, “…the river rose to record breaking levels, spreading so much ruin that Tillamook county has received more than 40 percent of the federal money provided so far to four counties declared disaster areas in the November Floods.” According to the article, the residents of Tillamook County are known as “the ones that flood every year.”

The counties call “…to move structures and remove old dikes have met with resistance either because people didn’t want to make changes or because of environmental concerns.” I’m sorry, but is that Oregroanian speak for, the people thought the changes were stupid and wouldn’t do anything to stop the flooding. I am sure that the environmental religious community was against any practical solution.

Please cover the ears of the children, but have you ever heard of a DAM. This simple solution has been taken off the table by environmentalist propaganda. It can be shown that predators kill more salmon than dams, and that dams save more salmon than they kill. Dams can be built fish friendly. Dams provide clean power to an energy hungry, over heated, ice melting, polar bear killing world. Oh by the way, Dams are also very successful at regulating floods. With all the federal money flowing into the country, they could have built a dam four times over.